Disney
Generally speaking, a nature documentary can go one of two routes: it can celebrate the dynamism of an animal, educating viewers on the lifestyle, paramount importance, and ecological strifes of the species at hand... or it can go for the cute factor. Disneynature's latest film Bears does not disappoint in either area. The beautiful, clever, and warm film from returning directors Alastair Fothergill and Keith Scholey has a mission to engage America with an animal that often gets a bad rap in the media, and which has faced the brunt of human cruelty for too long. Having renowned ethologist Dr. Jane Goodall on board with production bodes pretty well for the movie, too.
Now in theaters, Bears is not only aiming to help the cause of its titular creatures by spreading the good word, but it is also donating a portion of its box office intake to the National Park Foundation. If you attend a showing of the Disneynature movie during its first week in theaters (Friday, April 18 through Friday, April 25) part of your ticket proceeds will go toward the all-important cause of making this world a safer place for animals.
We got a chance to talk with directors Fothergill and Scholey, as well as Dr. Goodall, on the importance of the Disneynature films, the state of the natural world, and the majestic creatures of bears themselves.
Ever since watching the film, I've been thinking about the way that the media has depicted bears. I'm kind of unsure on this — do you think the media has been unfair or irresponsible in the portrayal of bears?
Alastair Fothergill: I think it depends which. There is a scattering and certainly some, I’d say almost notorious films, have been very anti-bear, and you can probably name a few. So I think this portrayal of bears as these big sort of dangerous animals... there’s no doubt bears can be dangerous. The issue with bears is that if you find bears in the wild, where they’ve had no bad experiences with people, and the relationship between people and bears has been managed well, which is exactly the place we filmed, in Katmai National Park, you don’t have a problem with bears.
And I think the film, well, we’re not interested in depicting in our story the relationship of people. In the end credits section, in the end, we do tacitly to deal with that issue, because we wanted to make sure that people knew our film was genuinely filmed in the wild, and when you actually see images of cameramen really close to bears and having a subtle relationship, I hope it sends a message out that absolutely, that’s all right. We have to be clear though, that bears, in some places, you know, have had bad experiences with people and the wrong relationships are dangerous. There’s no two ways about it. But it’s not the bear’s fault. It’s nearly always the circumstances.
Offering this more positive viewpoint of bears — in a light we don't often see, that they can be peaceful if they have been unharmed by people — I'm wondering what the larger benefits of that are? In an ecological or just psychological way.
Dr. Jane Goodall: Well, hopefully, these films, movies, they create for people a sort of intimate connection with animals that they’re unlikely, most of them, ever to find for themselves. Because most people don’t have the luxury of going for weeks and weeks out into wild places. Hopefully young people might then be persuaded to go and spend more time outside, because there really is such a terrifying disconnect between young people and nature today, with all of the electronical gadgets. Living in virtual reality is so different, and the big screen gives you the feeling of being out in a big, wide space. Hopefully it will stir some young people to want to do that themselves.
What do you guys think are the actual benefits that come with spending so much time with nature, or interacting with animals? I'm sure there are countless.
AS: Oh, golly, that’s a very big question. Obviously for us, who have grown up with a passion for nature, it’s sort of our life blood. But actually, I think it extends towards humanity. I think that even the most urban people need proximity to the natural world. You see, here in New York, people plant grass on rooftops, you know, the High Line is a place to go and see some plants. And I think it’s absolutely rooted in our psyche. One of the things I’ve found working in the wildlife business, whether they’re scientists or filmmakers or conservationists, I think they’re better people for it. They’re nicer people. It’s one of the things I love about my job. I genuinely think people who are fortunate enough to have a lot of exposure to nature... it’s part of our soul. It’s oxygen, I think, and a lot of people are cut off from that natural oxygen. And if we can give them an artificial shot of natural oxygen right in the cinema, then I think it’s very, very precious. And as Jane says, “How can people care if they know?” Keith and I don’t make environmentally – overtly environmental films, but I’m absolutely certain that films that we have made are important in raising people’s awareness.
Certainly. Especially children, I think.
JG: They’ve actually studies to show that children benefit psychologically from experience with nature. I think it was Chicago, they took two areas of high crime in the inner city, and one of them they greened — in other words, they put plants in vacant lots, window boxes and so forth — and the crime rate just dropped.
Disney
That kind of leads into something I was thinking about while watching the movie: what can these animals teach us about ourselves? We see the hierarchy of the bears' social structure — the dominant male, the pariah.
KS: I don’t think what we’re trying to do so much is try to tell people what to think about ourselves. I hope that the film is trying to say, “Look, this is how bears live, so understand the life of the bear and respect the life of the bear.” I think we’ve been very true to what it’s like being a bear, you know, some bears do things that we would consider bad, even on biological terms and there is no bad —
JG: I’m not so sure about that. [Laughs]
KS: [Laughs] It’s a tricky area. But anyway, there’s a sense of being true to what that story is and how they live. But I think fundamentally, what we’re always trying to do is to show – now, you look at this mother bear, you look at what she has to go through to raise those cubs. Look at what those cubs have to go through to become adult bears. So, whenever you see adult bears, you’re looking at a superhero. You’re looking at an animal with a huge history, who’s been through all sorts of amazing things. And wow, isn’t it important, then, to protect that superhero? I can’t believe personally, that someone could get a high-velocity rifle and shoot a superhero. If they knew that story, and what that animal had been through, I don’t think anyone would contemplate doing it.
And part and parcel of the film is to try and say all these animals are really special because of what their lives — understand their natural lives. I don’t think it necessarily tells us about ourselves, but it does say, “Wow, those are special.” I have to say, it’s like a piece of art. Would anyone rip up the Mona Lisa? Well, if you didn’t know what it was, you might.
JG: Somebody did.
KS: Somebody would, if they didn’t understand it. But if you do understand it, you go, “No, I won’t do that.”
JG: Somebody stabbed the Mona Lisa. I think they did. To destroy it —
AF: That’s why it’s got glass in front...
KS: Oh, okay.
AF: There are idiots in the world. [Laughs]
JG: Sports hunting.
That only furthers your point, I think.
KS: But I think if you understand bears, I think you’d have a different view. Hopefully the film will do that.
For me, having not studied bears in any significant way, the movie definitely gives them an empathy. I know that in a lot of your work, Dr. Goodall, a lot of people have found reasons to question whether or not we should empathize with animals. But I think that, clearly, you are all on the side that it is beneficial to.
JG: Yeah. There’s been a big danger with science saying that we should be wholly objective and not have any empathy. That’s lead to some very, very nasty happening. And I think we need to work with left and right brain in harmony. And that’s what we have to learn to do. Nature helps you to do that.
Animal Planet via Everett Collection
I know you said earlier that it wasn't a purpose of the film to teach us about ourselves, but I noticed that there was a little bit of a feminist message at the end. Scout realizes that the "tough bear role model" that he was looking for was actually his mother...
AF: I think, it’s quite interesting none of our Disney nature films have made — one called African Cats, I believe — females do tend to turn out to be the good guys...
KS: Girls. The good girls.
AF: The good girls, yes. [Laughs] Yes. I think the biological facts are raising cubs, it is females who have complete responsibility for this, and ultimately, if you look at their struggle or the struggle of any female animal raising a youngster to adulthood, it’s the greatest struggle on Earth. You’re always going to end up feeling, empathizing with her. And often males have their own biological agendas that do not fit with the cubs and youngsters’ agenda, in terms of raising them. [Laughs] So I think there’s a natural. We had no...
KS: We weren’t trying to make a feminist... It’s just reality of the situation.
JG: That's America for you.
AF: It’s just organic. And I think the other thing is, so far all the movies we’ve made — African Cats, Chimpanzee — have centered around a young animal growing up. Actually, we regularly discuss “Is there another story we can tell?” The problem is that the babies tend to be very, very cute, and the first few years in the life of the babies tend to be one of the greatest danger and drama. That means, though, they tend to be centered around female heroes, because in lots of animals, in nature, the male tends to do very little other than contribute his genes. One of these days, we need to make a pro-male movie, because in all honesty...
KS: Chimpanzee!
AF: Actually, males in chimpanzee certainly have a fantastic role in protecting the other females. Male bears, you know, once they’ve done the deed, they’re gone.
KS: Nothing on the horizon about the seahorse, then.
AF: My next movie’s about penguins, actually...
KS: That’s a 50/50.
AF: Yeah, that’s a 50/50, actually.
JG: Birds are 50/50.
AF: So we’re trying to – we don’t want the men to come out too badly. But a lot of women really love that line, the line you mention. That’s really rung bells with them. And you, know, that's good.
And I'd just like to know what you think is the responsibility of the average person to make this a better world for animals and for people.
JG: If we think each day about the consequences of our actions we make more ethical choices. And I know that’s true because so many people have told me. What do you buy? Where did it come from? Where do you eat? How did it affect the environment and animals? What do you wear? Was it child slave labor? When it comes to bringing it home to bears, it’s a little bit more difficult. It comes to the general thing of bears, they’re part of a beautiful ecosystem, they’re part of the planet, and we should respect them as such and try to work to ensure that the places where they live are saved. And through our youth program — we already have programs teaching people how to behave. If they have pushed into bear habitats, mainly black bears — and so the bear is trying to get, they raid trash cans. So if people have absolutely bear-proof places for their trash, the bears are much less likely to get into it.
AF: I think the thing that’s changed in our lifetime is that when we started in this business, conservation was very about saving pandas, saving chimps — and it still is and so it should be — but actually, it’s reached another level of recognition that even if you don’t care about animals, the planet is in such a state... this is our only planet. And that’s the good news. David Attenborough said to us, when he started the word green meant naïve. The word green means something totally different now. And I think there’s an awareness of the need to protect chimps, bears, the wilderness, forests for us to breathe. It’s no longer down the bottom of political agenda. It’s almost at the top of the political agenda, really.
JG: In some countries.
AF: Yeah, in some countries. I agree with you, Jane. There’s a lot where finance and money still rules, but we have to be optimistic. And I think you have to get out of bed and say, "We’re saving a planet." You’re not saving the Serengeti, you’re saving a planet. And of course, the Serengeti is a very important part of that planet, but I think it’s reached a completely high level. It’s not fluffy bunnies anymore. Not that there’s anything wrong with fluffy bunnies. [Laughs]
JG: When I started back in 1960, there was no need to conserve chimps. Their forests stretched right across. There were a million chimps.
KS: I know. I think this is what’s so shocking is how fast the situation’s changed. For a biologist it’s ridiculously fast. One understands evolution, biology, it’s almost like a meteorite hit the planet, it’s so rapid, and it’s just kind of trying to contain the situation, for want of anything else to try. I think for all of us now, time hasn’t quite run out, but it’s getting very, very close.
JG: And the thing which nobody will talk about, because it’s politically insensitive, and that’s human population, which underlies everything. We’re not supposed to talk about it. Tanzania’s been congratulated by the government for taking the lead on family planning in that part of Tanzania. Because governments are starting to get it. Because there ain’t 'nuff space.
Get your tickets to Disneynature's Bears now (while you can still contribute to the cause!)
Follow @Michael Arbeiter| Follow @Hollywood_com

Comedy Central
We’ve been watching Stephen Colbert for years now — for eight years on The Daily Show and the past nine on The Report. We’ve seen him mold the jingoistic dork who bears his name into an icon of modern satire, skewering current events and lampooning punditry five nights a week for just shy of a decade. We’ve seen Colbert degrade the English language, vie for immortality in the form of a Hungarian bridge, forward the movement against wrist violence, run for president, wrestle Jon Stewart at the 2012 Emmys, and inspire a delightful grouchiness in childhood author Maurice Sendak. We’ve seen lots of Stephen Colbert. But we really have no idea what he’s like.
But this man that we’ve yet to meet, save for rare candid interviews or pre-shtick recordings we might be lucky enough to have found on the web, seems to be the one we'll be spending the rest of our days with. Naturally, Colbert’s new residence on The Late Show, announced on Thursday via The New York Times, won’t foster this degree of caricature. As such, it’s natural for fans of the Colbert Report, even (or perhaps especially) the most diehard of the bunch, to approach the news of the comedian’s ascension to network TV with apprehension. We don’t know what he can do without the good graces of his O’Reilly-inspired alter ego. We’re not sure what a genuine Stephen Colbert interview will carry — when he’s not belittling, accosting, or deliberately misunderstanding his guests, can he still be funny?
We'll have to wait until 2015 for a proper answer to this first question, although we're comfortable with a resounding "probably." But in mourning the impending loss of The Colbert Report's main character, we have to take a look at his fellow late night players, and the game itself. In earnest, Colbert is the only one of the lot who has been working from the soils of true fiction, but the industry entails some degree of trimming and hedging. The cameras add 10 pounds of performative composure and well-rehearsed shtick, and the good ones keep their elements as vivid as Colbert has his Bill O'Reilly sendup.
So the second question is: which of these greats will show Colbert how to handle the balance of his Comedy Central icon and the South Carolinian who pronounces his last name with an audible "T"?
Gone by the wayside since Johnny Carson's retirement is the viewing audience's adherence to the "familial" in its crowning of a replacement late night king. With a long line from which to choose, we want characters. Maybe Jay Leno held good ratings thanks to his ability to play accessible and nonthreatening, but in the days of Internet criticism, professional and public alike, that translates to amorphous. There's no Jay Leno identity beyond the high-voiced bobblehead you'll find in too many stand-up comedy routines. Leno and his ilk have fallen to the new. We want the opportunity to dig through a collection of oddballs each night, satisfying whatever cravings the preceding hours have inspired.
We have that opportunity in David Letterman's crotchety cynic (who has always been, as a cultural fixture, far ahead of his time). In Jimmy Fallon's wide-eyed cherub. In Jon Stewart's put-upon nebbish. These are the characters these men have built, accessing something between relatability — face it, angrier people like Letterman and happier people like Fallon — and the special, distanced elation you get from watching a skilled actor work his comedic magic.
With so many balancing acts of varying aptitude — Chelsea Handler plays on sauciness, Jimmy Kimmel on boyish impetulance, Craig Ferguson on the residual mania of his dark past — Colbert has no shortage of professors to guide him through his early semesters in the CBS gig. But the best teacher of the lot to help Colbert tailor his character to the network form might very well be Conan O'Brien, who has managed from Late Night on to manufacture a most meticulous exaggeration of his gawky, psuedo-psychotic personality to maintain through bits, interviews, man-on-the-street routines, and even appearances in other media. It's really a shame he didn't get tenure.
It's natural to bemoan the loss of a character as important as Colbert's, or to fear that his greatness might not carry over to a new style of performance. But we have to remember that even in taking the stage as himself, performance is the most essential part of his new job. He might not bluster about as the right-wing blowhard we've come to love, but he sure as hell won't let his penchant for character craft and self-parody go untapped. He'll need it now more than ever.
Follow @Michael Arbeiter| Follow @Hollywood_com

The chimpanzee expert was hailed for her efforts to promote animal and environmental protection at the Observer Ethical Awards in London on Wednesday (30May12).
The ceremony's host Lucy Siegle says, "Jane Goodall has been recognised by our panel for her outstanding contribution to environmental and social justice. To this day she remains a tireless promoter of the planet, continuing to join the dots between essential ecological rights and vulnerable ecosystems. I am so grateful that we are able to formalise our devotion to this woman with an award."
The Firths were joined on the judging panel by British supermodel/actress Lily Cole and poet Ben Okri to pick the winners of the annual prizegiving, which celebrates campaigners fighting for sustainability.

The Slumdog Millionaire star was disappointed after director Rupert Wyatt decided against using real primates in the movie, but she had lots of fun looking them up on the web.
She tells Britain's Daily Mirror, "I would have loved to (spend time with apes) but there wasn't much opportunity.
"I did spend a lot of time reading about chimps, and also examining (primatologist) Jane Goodall's interviews and all her YouTube video links, so I did that kind of research."

Given the anarchist ethos of the Jackass films, it’s tempting to assume them to be the spontaneous creations of Johnny Knoxville and his masochistic mates. But director Jeff Tremaine has been at the helm from the beginning, working quietly behind the scenes to ensure that every prank and stunt is imbued with a modicum of professionalism and craftsmanship. And to make sure that nobody dies.
Ask yourself: Would a sequence like Jackass 3D’s "Poo-cano," in which Dave England’s bowels do their best impression of Mount Pinatubo, be nearly as effective if Tremaine hadn’t taken care to have England’s buttocks painted green and surrounded with an elaborately crafted mountain village, complete with a working train set and miniature doomed villagers? I don’t know. Frankly, I don’t ever want to know.
With Jackass 3D arriving this week to test the gag reflexes of moviegoers nationwide, Tremaine spoke with us about his latest assemblage of audacious, idiotic, and uproarious short subjects:
What I'd give to witness one of you guys getting pranked.
Oh, that's fun. We did a fun one here at the Roosevelt Hotel. We did the gorilla bit (in which Chris Pontius attacks the Margera parents while dressed in a gorilla suit) here. It's so fun not knowing if it's going to happen, if it’s gonna work. You have all this plotting, you know, and that was a particularly hard one because a fake gorilla is hard to pull off! But we darkened the room and just made sure there were enough distractions going on so they never got a great look. And the gorilla suit was really great and Chris was funny in it. I love when the impossible gets pulled off, like the giant hand. I didn't even want to shoot that bit. I didn't think it was going to work.
What I enjoy most is the reactions. I think that's where the real comedic skills come into play.
That's just pure, honest reactions. Like I said, your adrenaline is almost running hotter on a prank like that than it is on a big stunt. So much can go wrong. With that stunt, there's a foosball table that don't even see, and we slid the foosball table over just enough because we knew the guys' behaviors. Whenever they'd come to the production house, they'd congregate in the kitchen. So the hand had to go in the kitchen. And then I cheated it to where Wee Man would cheat their eye line a little bit so it gave us a little more time to come out and hit them. It's fun plotting the psychology of it, you know?
And these guys are veterans. They're used to getting pranked, so you have to be a lot more clever.
And when we're shooting the movie, they go on high alert. That bit, that probably happened somewhere in the early stages of the movie, but not too early. They'd already started to get got. They get paranoid, you know? (Laughs)
Are you one of the guys who got peed on during the penis-cam sequence?
Yep.
Did you ever think to yourself, I wonder if Kubrick ever got peed on?
(Laughs) I always related a lot more to say, Jane Goodall, than I did to Francis Ford Coppola, as far as my job goes. It's definitely more about studying the chimpanzees.
And what have you learned in your years of studying the chimpanzees?
Just believe in the impossible. Don't doubt certain things, man. It's hard because a lot of times you're right to doubt certain things, but when you get an idea that seems so far-fetched and you pull it off, that's the best bit there is. It's like in the second movie when we got Ehren (McGhehey) with the pubes on his face and we dressed him up as a terrorist. That one went as far as we planned it. We knew we had a win once we got the dick hair on his face, so anything after that was gravy. And we got the whole thing! It was just shocking how it worked like that. The best ones are the farthest fetched to go after. A lot of times, I shut them down because I think it's too far fetched and it’s not gonna happen, but we should probably try more of them.
Is that part of your role as a director, to be the voice of reason?
I think so. Yeah, to a degree that's my role. Knoxville and I are the ones who ultimately decide what's going to get shot and what's not. He's the one who came up with the idea for the high-five, and he stayed on and was like "We're doing this. We gotta do it." I was like, “All right, let’s try.” And sure enough, boom, boom, boom, everyone got hit.
And then he doubted me on the Poo-cocktail Supreme. I wrote that idea. It was sort of an homage to the first thing we ever did with MTV's money, which was tip Knoxville over in a port-o-john into a trash truck. So that was sort of the idea, and he didn't like it because of that. He was like, "We've kind of already done it." And I go, "Yeah, but it's sort of on a big scale. It's now our ten-year anniversary, let's do a sort of tribute."
Then when we got to the set, we saw it. On paper, a 100-foot crane sounds big, but when you see it, you're like, f**k, man, this is a lot harrier. Now that you're actually seeing the cranes there with the whole setup and it was a windy day with stuff blowing around. You could just tell it was going to be epic. And it felt huge. And you could see the sh*t spraying. It was crazy from our perspective. But when we got him down and they cleaned it out and we got the cameras out from inside there, Steve-O told a funny story afterward. He heard us watching the point-of-view cameras and he said it sounded like the winning goal in the World Cup. We're so used to our half-ass production value of the POV cameras we use. We shoot with them all the time, and we almost never put them in the right spot. They get loose or the shoot the ground or they break off. That shot had three angles, perfectly placed, that got it. It's unbelievable what happened in there. And the fact that Steve-O had goggles on, a nose plug on, ear plugs in, but he didn't think to cover his mouth, and he screamed right at the wrong time.
And nobody bothered to suggest that he cover his mouth.
No, no. I certainly wasn’t about to say anything.
One of the things I like about Jackass is that there's a kind of sophistication to it. You have to have the proper setup and payoff to pull it off as effectively as you do.
Well, we've been doing it a long time. (Laughs) With Jackass, The best way to go about it is to not be too clever about it. You name the bit what it is, don't be cute about it, and then it's very straightforward. It does require a little bit of planning, but we have a lot of really creative people that have been with us forever. The camera men are creative. The props guy and the art team are phenomenal. Look at the Invisible Man bit or the Poo-cano set. It doesn't look perfect; it just looks perfect for Jackass. The coolest stuff we've ever done and it still has a Jackass aesthetic to it, you know? I love that. It's gotta have a handmade feel to it. They almost have dumb down their talents to fit Jackass, you know?
It has to be exhausting for you, though. Were you hesitant at all to make a third film?
No, I was psyched. We take four years each time, so you're ready by then. Like I'm shell shocked now. We couldn't make another Jackass next year. I was ready. But my nerves do get rattled. They were trying to get me all the time. And it’s real. Jackass is real. The stunts, the death-defying shit that's happening is real. You can’t make it safe, most of this sh*t. You can try, and we do our best to make things as safe as possible. But the guys often times don't want to wear any padding and so it's just a lot of rolling the dice and hoping it works out. And it's stressful for me. I don't want to be the guy that just killed my friends. (Laughs)
Luckily, none of the guys seem very litigious.
Yeah, luckily. They're much more happy to piss in my beer than see me in court.
Do you think this will keep going as long as Johnny's into it? I have to think he's the one essential piece.
He definitely was on this one. The second movie was my idea. I was the one who rallied that one. But this movie, he came around and brought it up. I think everyone was feeling ready and sort of hoping that Knoxville would come around, and Knoxville had switched over. He’d been wearing Nike high-tops for probably a year. And then, one day, he came into the office and he had his old Chuck Taylors on and I was like, hot damn, we're doing it.
So that was the sign?
That, and there was a stack of Tom and Jerry DVDs on his desk. So I was like, all right, something's happening here.
That's funny, because Jackass does definitely have a sort of Looney Tunes, Wile E. Coyote sensibility.
Yeah. It's a f**kin' cartoon. But we've made each of these as if it's the last. Right now, I think it's the end. But you know, see me in three years and I'll probably tell you were making another one.
Jackass 3D opens everywhere this Friday, October 15, 2010.

Oh how Pixar has spoiled us. After a decade and a half of the studio releasing one classic after another from 1995’s Toy Story to last year’s Up! we’ve grown accustomed to animated films both visually stunning and emotionally captivating. And when another studio’s animated offering however solidly-crafted falls short of these impossibly high expectations it’s inevitably damned with the faint praise of “It’s not Pixar but...” Such is the plight of Dreamworks’ How to Train Your Dragon a movie only superior to say 65% of live-action films as opposed to 99% of them.
Based on the children’s novel by Cressida Cowell How to Train Your Dragon is set on the mythical island of Berk home to a tribe of macho stubborn Vikings who refuse to relocate despite near-constant attacks from fire-breathing dragons. The most macho and stubborn of the tribe is the their chief Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler) a brave and burly ginger beast whose teenage son Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) inherited virtually none of his father’s traits. Scrawny self-effacing and intellectually curious — making him pretty much the anti-Viking — he’s a constant source of shame to his mighty father.
Eager to win his dad’s approval — and by extension the respect of his tribe — he enrolls in Dragon Training where young Vikings learn to slay the winged demons that prey upon Berk. But Hiccup is ultimately a pacifist at heart and when he manages to wound a highly-prized Night Fury dragon he can’t bring himself to finish off the injured creature choosing instead to nurse it back to health. He names the creature Toothless develops a tight bond with it and evolves into a sort of Jane Goodall of dragons learning how to subdue and eventually domesticate them.
As 3D-animated experiences go How to Train Your Dragon ranks among the best of them surpassing recent entries like Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and even Pixar’s last Oscar-winning release in its exploitation of the burgeoning format. An airborne sequence in which Hiccup pilots Toothless on their first test run together is truly exhilarating as is the film’s chaotic opening battle sequence between the Vikings and their dragon nemeses. But its story lacks the same energy its humor the same punch and its pace too often drags — a fatal flaw for a movie tasked with occupying the minds of fidgety pre-teens for 98 minutes.
Oh and don’t bother trying to figure out why all the child Vikings in How to Train Your Dragon have American accents while the adults have Scottish ones. Remember this is the same studio that gave us Shrek featuring another inexplicable Scottish brogue. The artists at Dreamworks just have a weird Scot fetish.